9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 1160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods falling under chapter 73, 84 and 85 of Central Excise Tariff. The appellant availed at the relevant time the exemption Notification 175/86. Two notices were issued in September and October, 1992 demanding duty on the goods cleared by the appellant in July and September, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) found that the issue was covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in EL.P.EM Industry v. C.C.E. - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 599 and Swaraj Paint Industries v. C.C.E. - 1991 (52) E.L.T. 59, accepted the assessee s appeal and set aside the Assistant Collector s order. Hence this appeal by the department. 3. The appeal cites the decisions of the Tribunal, holding views contrary to the above decisions s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was the limit in the notification at the relevant time) be within the total ceiling of Rs. 30 lakhs. This decision therefore supports the ground in the Department s appeal. 4. Normally that would settle the matter. However, there is one more element. The appeal against Khalsa Pulp Paper Industries v. C.C.E. (unreported) [since reported in 2004 (175) E.L.T. 801 (Tri.)] which had followed the ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Revenue that merely because the Supreme Court rejected in limine at the admission stage an order of the Tribunal the ratio of the Tribunal decision would act as binding precedent. It said, No doubt it is contended on behalf of the Revenue that the contrary view taken by the Tribunal has been challenged in this Court which is rejected. We do not think that dismissal at the admission stage ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
